Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Calypsis4

Living Fossils Destroy Evolution

Recommended Posts

Quote: "The Coelacanth was a creature presumed by the scientific body before 1953 to have been extinct for 75 million years and purported to be as old as 450 million years. Evolutionary scientists used the coelacanth fossils as evidence to support their theory that fish evolved into amphibians. It was hailed as one of the great missing links, which was well on it's way to becoming an amphibian, that is, until one was caught off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. Surprisingly it looked the same as it's alleged 75 million year old fossilized ancestor. It was found to be a fully functional fish type creature that forgot to evolve." (Noel Chartier)

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

This is just but one of the many mistakes that evolutionists have made concerning their theory but they have made it so elastic in nature that it can be stretched to 'explain' away any error made by the devotees of Darwin.

 

There are hundreds of examples of 'living fossils' such as,

 

Posted Image

 

The lowly lobster. But when one makes comparisons to search for the transition between one class of organism into another we come up empty. There is no such transition.

 

Posted Image

 

more to come:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More examples of fossils compared to their living descendants that reveal no evolutionary change:

 

Posted Image

 

and...

 

Posted Image

 

Then this;

 

Posted Image

 

compared with...

 

Posted Image

 

Then we have fossil fern and a living fern compared.

 

Posted Image

 

Where is the evolutionary change? And where is the stage by stage development of such organisms in the fossil record? Fact: There are none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still more:

 

Posted Image

 

One species of ground lizard compared to another but the differences between them are almost undetectable. Again we ask, 'Where are the transitional stages between one organism and another classifiably, identifiably different organism?

 

Posted Image

 

The dragonfly. Compare it to its living offspring:

 

Posted Image

 

The mosquito hasn't changed in 'millions of years' either:

 

Posted Image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give a few more among the hundreds of examples I could give:

 

Check out this shark with its offspring:

 

Posted Image

 

And this octopus:

 

Posted Image

 

Where is the evolutionary change after supposedly millions of years?

 

Then we have...

 

Posted Image

 

If, like the others, this creature EVER evolved from anything where is the step-by-step evidence of such change in the fossil record? And why hasn't it evolved since then?

 

Has the alligator evolved? If so, from what?

 

Posted Image

 

What about the Katydid?

 

Posted Image

 

There is one thing for certain about this comparison that 'Katy didn't': evolve from one one type of organism into a classifiably different one.

 

All the examples on this page are from Dr. Carl Werners book, "Living Fossils: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2" from New Leaf Press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Katy didn't' LOL

 

Stasis in the fossil record isn't the only problem for evolution; Stasis only refutes gradualism. The fact that these organisms appear without any transitionals (gradualist or not) that is the most telling.

 

 

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant post, thank you. I think this is the most living fossils I have seen all at one time. Does the book give an indication of how old the fossils are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant post, thank you.  I think this is the most living fossils I have seen all at one time.  Does the book give an indication of how old the fossils are?

69347[/snapback]

That is one of the things I wish it did but does so rarely. But it does give the age (Cretaceous, Ordovician, etc) on occasion. However one can look up almost any of them quickly on Wikipedia.

 

I obtained it at the Creation Museum bookstore which has perhaps the greatest wealth of creationist literature in the world.

 

Thanks and best wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant post, thank you.  I think this is the most living fossils I have seen all at one time.  Does the book give an indication of how old the fossils are?

69347[/snapback]

Here you can find hundreds of them.

 

 

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: "The Coelacanth was a creature presumed by the scientific body before 1953 to have been extinct for 75 million years and purported to be as old as 450 million years. Evolutionary scientists used the coelacanth fossils as evidence to support their theory that fish evolved into amphibians. It was hailed as one of the great missing links, which was well on it's way to becoming an amphibian, that is, until one was caught off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. Surprisingly it looked the same as it's alleged 75 million year old fossilized ancestor. It was found to be a fully functional fish type creature that forgot to evolve." (Noel Chartier)

69340[/snapback]

So the coelacanth was thought to have long gone extinct but then a living one was found that hadn't evolved much. How does that destroy evolution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the coelacanth was thought to have long gone extinct but then a living one was found that hadn't evolved much.  How does that destroy evolution?

69357[/snapback]

Not just that alone. You seem to have missed the whole point of this thread. Do you think if I posted all the hundreds of examples of living fossils compared to their ancestors that reveal no evolutionary changes that it might make an impression on you?

 

P.S. the coelacanth hadn't evolved any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have missed the whole point of this thread. Do you think if I posted all the hundreds of examples of living fossils compared to their ancestors that reveal no evolutionary changes that it might make an impression on you?

 

P.S. the coelacanth hadn't evolved any.

69359[/snapback]

My query would be the same if you showed ten examples of species that hadn't evolved (much or at all) or if you showed a hundred examples: were a species already sufficiently adapted or didn't face new environmental pressures then what would natural selection select against? Natural selection is a bias toward what works and an already sufficiently adpated population need not necessarily change. Evolution has no prescribed direction, Darwin and Wallace theorized the processes by which change and speciation could happen not that it was a necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the coelacanth was thought to have long gone extinct but then a living one was found that hadn't evolved much.  How does that destroy evolution?

69357[/snapback]

Prediction of it being extinct was wrong.

 

Also if the fossil record was actually a record and not dead life sorted by the flood. It would have the colecanth in every layer above it's original one showing it did not change. But yet not one living fossil is found between the layers of it's find until present day.

 

Sorting would just sort, and that's what we see.

 

A record of time of living things would support what is found. Colecanth found in one layer and alive. And no other layer means it's not a record as it's called.

 

Another example is the Sea Pen. It's found in the "lowest layer" of the column.

 

Posted Image

 

And also found alive.

 

Posted Image

 

Yet not found in "any" layer in between.

 

What destroys the column support for evolution, destroys evolution itself. This is because it destroys what is suppose to be a recorded history of how everything evolved. A flawed record is not a record. If you don't think so, then show the proof of living fossils being in any other layer than the one it's found in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My query would be the same if you showed ten examples of species that hadn't evolved (much or at all) or if you showed a hundred examples:  were a species already sufficiently adapted or didn't face new environmental pressures then what would natural selection select against?  Natural selection is a bias toward what works and an already sufficiently adpated population need not necessarily change.  Evolution has no prescribed direction, Darwin and Wallace theorized the processes by which change and speciation could happen not that it was a necessity.

69367[/snapback]

Since mutations are random, you can not argue that evolution didn't happen because it "wasn't needed." You can argue that it survived despite staying the same because of natural selection, but it would be the same as using the "God of the gaps" argument that atheists always accuse Creationists of using.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The geological column supports the flood more than evolution for 2 reasons:

 

1) Living fossils are only found in one layer, when they should be found in several layers.

2) The Bible says: The fountains of the deep were broken up during the flood. Which means the burying from sediments process started on what lives at the bottom of the ocean.

 

Posted Image

 

And that is what we see. Bottom dwellers first. Then it works up from there until land animals get buried.

 

gen 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

 

gen 8:2 The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained;

 

So if the process starts at the bottom of the ocean (fountains of the deep), what is going to get buried first?

 

So living fossils show that the column was sorted and not made over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since mutations are random, you can not argue that evolution didn't happen because it "wasn't needed." You can argue that it survived despite staying the same because of natural selection, but it would be the same as using the "God of the gaps" argument that atheists always accuse Creationists of using.

69376[/snapback]

Change in a population over generations is driven by natural selection weeding out less adaptive phenotypes from the population. Mutations account for the emergence of new traits for natural selection to work upon allowing for the development of the population should these new traits be selected. Should a species already be sufficiently adapted then its phenotypes would not be selected against in favour of newer traits and the gene pool wouldn’t evolve. For natural selection to change a population there needs to be sufficient variety of phenotypes to work upon and sufficient environmental pressure - oil-degrading bacteria do not appear to have evolved at all over billions of years. I don’t see the comparison with “God of the gapsâ€ÂÂ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So living fossils show that the column was sorted and not made over time.

69381[/snapback]

Living fossils are species once thought to have gone extinct but then found alive and not having had evolved much.

 

A flood would have left specimens deposited chaotically and in no particular order. Instead, we observe an order consistent with the relationships in the tree of life. Lines are not observed in layers lower than the layer in which earlier ancestors first emerge (e.g. birds are not observed in layers lower than the first appearance of reptiles) - were such contradictions observed the TOE would be falsified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living fossils are species once thought to have gone extinct but then found alive and not having had evolved much.

 

A flood would have left specimens deposited chaotically and in no particular order.  Instead, we observe an order consistent with the relationships in the tree of life.  Lines  are not observed in layers lower than the layer in which earlier ancestors first emerge (e.g. birds are not observed in layers lower than the first appearance of reptiles) - were such contradictions observed the TOE would be falsified.

69385[/snapback]

Can you prove your claim of specimens being deposited chaotically? If you are going to debunk the flood and the column being made by the flood. Then you need to come up with tests that were done that shows without doubt that a flood could "never" lay anything in order. I have yet to see one evo do this. All I see are claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change in a population over generations is driven by natural selection weeding out less adaptive phenotypes from the population.  Mutations account for the emergence of new traits for natural selection to work upon allowing for the development of the population should these new traits be selected.  Should a species already be sufficiently adapted then its phenotypes would not be selected against in favour of newer traits and the gene pool wouldn’t evolve.  For natural selection to change a population there needs to be sufficient variety of phenotypes to work upon and sufficient environmental pressure - oil-degrading bacteria do not appear to have evolved at all over billions of years.  I don’t see the comparison with “God of the gaps”.

69384[/snapback]

You used the argument that I predicted in my previous post. In fact, your explanation proves my point. Natural selection is the evo god. Natural selection is your god of the gaps. It's funny that every time I make this point evolutionists explain the basic principles of natural selection, in which I am aware of.

 

Natural Selection just happens, but for it to work in the evo model you need to demonstrate not only an increase of the information on the genome, but you will need novel information as well. Your version of natural selection is conjecture unless you can provide evidence of this sort of change happening on the genome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change in a population over generations is driven by natural selection weeding out less adaptive phenotypes from the population. Mutations account for the emergence of new traits for natural selection to work.

The point is that phenotypes appear abruptly and don't change or go extinct. How is dinosaur extinction an example of NS and mutations weeding out less adaptive phenotypes? What did they evolve from or into?

 

Posted Image

 

 

 

 

Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You used the argument that I predicted in my previous post. In fact, your explanation proves my point. Natural selection is the evo god. Natural selection is your god of the gaps. It's funny that every time I make this point evolutionists explain the basic principles of natural selection, in which I am aware of.

The process of natural selection has been observed to lead to change in a population over generations. God is a supernatural entity and has not been observed. Using an observed process as an explanation of past processes is not comparable to invoking the supernatural.

 

Natural Selection just happens, but for it to work in the evo model you need to demonstrate not only an increase of the information on the genome, but you will need novel information as well. Your version of natural selection is conjecture unless you can provide evidence of this sort of change happening on the genome.

69390[/snapback]

Would a duplicated gene one copy of which has mutated not amount to novel and increased information on the genome? Natural selection has been observed and is more than conjecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you prove your claim of specimens being deposited chaotically? If you are going to debunk the flood and the column being made by the flood. Then you need to come up with tests that were done that shows without doubt that a flood could "never" lay anything in order. I have yet to see one evo do this. All I see are claims.

69389[/snapback]

I don’t claim that specimens were deposited chaotically. I claim that the order in which specimens are found is consistent with the relatedness seen in the tree of life - this is continually tested by observation and no falsification has yet happened.

 

There is no reason to expect that rodents drowned in a flood would never be deposited below the lowest reptiles drowned in a flood (whereas phylogeny predicts that mammals evolved from reptiles). There is no reason to expect that flightless birds drowned in a flood would never be deposited below the lowest reptiles drowned in a flood (whereas phylogeny predicts that birds evolved from reptiles). The TOE is the only explanation consistent with the order of specimens through the geological column.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t claim that specimens were deposited chaotically.  I claim that the order in which specimens are found is consistent with the relatedness seen in the tree of life - this is continually tested by observation and no falsification has yet happened.

 

There is no reason to expect that rodents drowned in a flood would never be deposited below the lowest reptiles drowned in a flood  (whereas phylogeny predicts that mammals evolved from reptiles).  There is no reason to expect that flightless birds drowned in a flood would never be deposited below the lowest reptiles drowned in a flood  (whereas phylogeny predicts that birds evolved from reptiles). The TOE is the only explanation consistent with the order of specimens through the geological column.

69424[/snapback]

If you know anything about being a Christian, which you may not. You will also know that God tests our faith constantly to see if we will choose the right thing. Allowing the flood to sort like it did maybe a test to see if we will believe only what we see, or what God says.

 

Also, one cannot falsify when what is claimed is all about conformism. Because if science were not about conformism, then what is believed about origins would make no difference on whether a person is accepted as a scientist. It would be his education only. But that is not what we see, is it?

 

What is a true proven fact does not need conformism because it stands on it's own merit. Being not able to stand on it's own merit says a lot about the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The process of natural selection has been observed to lead to change in a population over generations.  God is a supernatural entity and has not been observed.  Using an observed process as an explanation of past processes is not comparable to invoking the supernatural.

Your version of natural selection has not been observed because you have not seen any novel information on the genome. Despite the fact that DNA can replicate itself, information is actually lost on the genome when mutation occurs. To prove evolution from abiogenesis you will need to see an increase of information, meaning not only more information on the genome, but NOVEL information.

 

Would a duplicated gene one copy of which has mutated not amount to novel and increased information on the genome?  Natural selection has been observed and is more than conjecture.

69423[/snapback]

You miss the point, you will need NOVEL information on the genome in order to evolve after abiogenesis. Any observed mutation is merely tinkering, altering, or losing information. The mutations that you are referring to is DNA replicating itself and then errors on the copy can lead to a mutation. This however, does not support abiogenesis or your version of evolution or natural selection.

 

You are now trying to make the argument as if I do not believe that natural selection exists, when I did acknowledge that it happens.(That tactic is against the rules by the way, this isn't talkorigins.) What I am implying is that your version of natural selection is supernatural and you are trying to use it to explain living fossils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The process of natural selection has been observed to lead to change in a population over generations.

69423[/snapback]

I believe the FULL definition, (as said by my evo-lecturers), is a change in allele frequency in a population over time, however.... changing the frequency of an allele won't change it into a new species... ie- havng a decreased percentage of blonde women won't make that population a new species... no they remain human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote: "The Coelacanth was a creature presumed by the scientific body before 1953 to have been extinct for 75 million years and purported to be as old as 450 million years. Evolutionary scientists used the coelacanth fossils as evidence to support their theory that fish evolved into amphibians. It was hailed as one of the great missing links, which was well on it's way to becoming an amphibian, that is, until one was caught off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. Surprisingly it looked the same as it's alleged 75 million year old fossilized ancestor. It was found to be a fully functional fish type creature that forgot to evolve." (Noel Chartier)

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

This is just but one of the many mistakes that evolutionists have made concerning their theory but they have made it so elastic in nature that it can be stretched to 'explain' away any error made by the devotees of Darwin.

 

There are hundreds of examples of 'living fossils' such as,

 

Posted Image

 

The lowly lobster. But when one makes comparisons to search for the transition between one class of organism into another we come up empty. There is no such transition.

 

Posted Image

 

more to come:

69340[/snapback]

Don't be silly. Don't you know those the fossils and the modern animals are two different species? I mean even though they look pretty much the same, only the trained eye can REALLY see that the species have evolved! I mean, scientists even know that these coelacanths swam in fresh water versus the modern that are in salt water. Because obviously they've analyzed the salinity of the matrix it was buried in. See, because there was NO flood, where things are buried tells us about their entire ecology!! Didn't you know that? B)

 

You guys just don't understand evolution--that's the problem!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms